asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit the British Army of the Rhine.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to visit British troops stationed in West Germany.

I hope to have the opportunity to do so in the near future.

When, in due course, the right hon. Gentleman has the courage to visit BAOR, will he explain that now that Germany is considering separate loan facilities for this country to rescue the Government apart from the IMF facility, everything will be all right and the Government will not have to pull our forces out of NATO? Indeed, did he not say that to the German Defence Minister last week?

It is not through lack of courage that I have not visited BAOR. Indeed, I have had the great pleasure of visiting BAOR on previous occasions. It is all a matter of time. If the hon. Gentleman will assist me with a "pair", perhaps that will facilitate the arrangements. It would not be appropriate to discuss the financing of our troops in BAOR. I wish to make clear that we have no plans to withdraw our forces, but we need to make it clear to our allies that substantial foreign exchange costs are involved.

Nevertheless, when my right hon. Friend visits BAOR will he take the opportunity to talk to his counterpart in the German Government and make clear what an intolerable burden is involved in our support costs as a result of the devaluation of the pound and the revaluation of the mark? Is it not high time that Germany took some effective action to reduce that burden?

I had the opportunity of meeting the German Defence Minister, Herr Leber, 10 days ago, and I expect to receive him at a NATO meeting in London next week. I made clear our difficulties—though I did not quite use the language adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin).

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Anglo-German tank featured in discussions with the German Defence Minister? What progress is being made on this joint project, and was Chobham armour a factor in discussions?

No, we did not discuss Chobham armour. One of the great problems in producing tanks for the Alliance is that the time scale between our requirements is so different. We are not replacing Chieftain until the end of the next decade. The urgent need of the Germans is to find a replacement of the M48 tank, beginning in a couple of years, and the Americans will soon want to replace some of their older tanks. Therefore, studies of the future main battle tank have been taking place. This will not happen until the next generation of weapons, and therefore the problem is not imminent.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that when he next meets his German opposite number he will raise the matter of Chobham armour? Is it true that we shall obtain no commercial advantage from the Americans or the Germans by letting them have the secret of this armour, and that they are not willing to give any quid pro quo either in terms of continuing the joint battle tank or in purchasing our guns?

I do not know that there is any need to discuss the arrangements made by the previous Administration for making the Chobham armour available. It is customary within NATO for this information to be exchanged. Under no circumstances would we make tanks for another NATO country—nor would they make them for us. Even if there were a standard tank, the production would be in Germany or the United States, as the case may be. The ques- tion of the replacement of our tank, as I said earlier, will not arise for at least another 10 to 12 years.

Without in any way apologising for what the last Government did, which I think was right, or, indeed, criticising what was done by the previous Government, which I also think was right, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the first information about Chobham armour was given in 1965, and certainly a great deal of information was given in 1968 or 1969?

Without notice I cannot give the precise dates, but it is right for all allies to co-operate to increase the maximum strength of the Alliance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the present spares position for BAOR; and what are the current restrictions on petrol and ammunition for training purposes for the Army and RAF, respectively.

Temporary shortages have occurred from time to time in the past but I am satisfied there are no general shortages of spares in BAOR at present. Current restrictions on the use of fuel and ammunition are not impairing Army and RAF training programmes.

In spite of what he has said, does the hon. Gentleman realise that to keep the Army short of ammunition and training facilities of this sort is damaging to morale as well as to efficiency? Will he look into the matter again? Does he recognise that those of us who take an interest in these matters will do our best to ensure that he keeps up to the mark?

I am always happy to investigate any incident that the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends wish to draw to my attention. I repeat the assurance that I gave a moment ago. Clearly, we would always like to be able to give the forces in Germany the maximum amount of training facilities. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that certain types of missile and certain forms of sophisticated equipment make it an expensive matter.

Is there not a spares problem? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous diversity of weapons used by each member of the Alliance? Does he recognise that every model of tank has a different weapon and a different engine, and that they all need different spares? What is being done to standardise these spares and weapons?

With respect, I do not think that the picture is quite as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman painted, although there is always scope for improvement in the standardisation of NATO weapons and weapon systems. The hon. Gentleman mentioned tanks in particular, I am sure that he will recognise that the British tank gun is widely used within NATO forces. My right hon. Friend and his opposite number in the United States, Secretary Rumsfeld, are particularly keen to make as much progress as possible in this direction.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that at a time when we are finding many Conservative Members calling for cuts in public expenditure it is extremely important that economies should be made in this sphere? Is he aware that we should strongly support more far-reaching economies being made in BAOR?

My hon. Friend will be aware that substantial economies were made as a result of the 1975 defence review.

I must declare an interest, as I have two sons who are serving. Will the Minister reconsider what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) in his answer? Will he tell the House how many hours a Chieftain tank can be exercised in a year? Will he tell us for how many hours helicopters are allowed to fly and how many anti-tank missiles are allowed to be fired? What is the amount of training that is allowed to be carried out by BAOR?

I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's proposition that it is important for both BAOR and RAF Germany to have adequate training facilities. The level of training that is required is an operational matter, on which my right hon. Friend and I take advice from the Chiefs of Staff. As I said in answer to the Question, I am advised that current restrictions on the use of fuel and ammunition are not impairing training progress for either of the Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the Prime Minister's statement on British forces in Germany on television on 25th October, he will now set a time limit for the conclusion of an agreement for adequate offset arrangements by the West German Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now able to report on his discussions with the West German Government on a new offset agreement on the BAOR.

Our discussions with the Federal German Government are continuing. We have made it clear that we are looking for a substantial German contribution towards the cost of stationing British forces in Germany and that we hope to find an early solution to the problem. I cannot say when this will be, but I do not think it would be helpful to set a time limit.

In view of the Prime Minister's forceful comments, which proved effective in scaring the German Government into providing us with loan arrangements, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to follow that up by putting the screw on and saying to the German Government "Now pay up, or else"?

I do not think that my hon. Friend's interpretation of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is completely accurate. My right hon. Friend was certainly not intending to scare anyone. I do not think that we should reach the best conclusion if I were to adopt exactly the tactics that my hon. Friend suggested. I stress, as I did on a previous occasion in the House, that we attach the utmost importance to reaching a satisfactory outcome to the problem.

Although the Prime Minister's remarks may not have been intended to scare anybody, they certainly scared our Allies in NATO. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the word that was on everyone's lips in Germany was "blackmail"? That is not an attractive word to attach to a British Prime Minister.

A short while ago I was in Germany talking to the Minister of Defence, and that was not a word on his lips. I think that he may count a little more in these matters than some of the Germans with whom the hon. Gentleman was immediately in contact.

Is it not time that Germany was scared into coming to a decent offset agreement? Negotiations have been proceeding for over 12 years without a suitable agreement being reached. Is he aware that a substantial part of our balance of payments deficit occurs in this area, and that if we brought home the British Army of the Rhine we should provide extra employment for British civilians, bearing in mind the 30,000 or more German civilians that are involved?

I cannot see how bringing home the British Army of the Rhine would increase employment in Britain. As I have said, it is not our intention to do that. The Prime Minister was concerned to put the facts clearly before the British people and our friends and Allies in NATO. He wanted to make clear the substantial costs in foreign exchange that our valued commitment to NATO represents.

Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the reputed massive contribution of West Germany towards the loan arrangements now being made for this country as part of the offset agreement, or as something entirely separate?

As I thought I had made clear, we have not reached an offset agreement in the current year. It may well be that other considerations than the exact offset of BAOR will come into the reckoning.

If the pound is floating, is it not the case that there is no economic difference between foreign exchange costs and any other costs?

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman's erudition, but I think he understands that if we have a foreign exchange deficit it must be financed by borrowing from foreign countries.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of a time limit for the new offset agreement? Surely we can no longer afford it. The Germans should be told plainly that that is the position. We should take up what the Prime Minister said and tell them plainly that if they are not prepared to pay for them we shall pull the forces out of Germany.

I do not happen to think that that would necessarily be the best course for achieving the result that we want. I must make it clear to the House that, happily, the conduct of the negotiations does not rest with the Secretary of State for Defence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps he is taking to repair the damage done to the morale of our forces by the Prime Minister's appalling broadcast and by the Government's continual cuts in defence?

I do not accept that the troops are in a sad state of morale. Whilst in my present office I have seen a number of units and I do not think it would be right to say that morale is bad. There is a great deal to be said for candour, and that was the characteristic of my right hon. Friend's television programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what savings would be made in his Vote if British forces in Europe were withdrawn and disbanded.

No such assessment has been made.

Will my right hon. Friend proceed to make such an assessment? Is it not desirable to know the facts so that we could recognise, for example, what the consequence would be if BAOR were withdrawn and maintained or withdrawn and disbanded? Such information would be valuable. The knowledge that my right hon. Friend was looking into these matters would be salutary in Germany.

As I have said, it is not the intention or desire to withdraw our forces from Germany. Secondly, at a time when, rightly, I am urged to make substantial reductions in defence expenditure, I am reluctant to indulge in an exercise of accountancy which would entail a lot of man hours when I do not see the need for it. In any event, we should need to keep some of the forces, not least because of our commitment in Northern Ireland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that two can play at the Prime Minister's game, and that the United States and Germany are unlikely to give support to sterling if we threaten to tear down the Alliance by withdrawing BAOR?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to trespass into areas which I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prefer to keep for himself.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the British balance of payments problem is less severe than that of France? Will he make it plain to the West German Government that we shall have to follow France's example and withdraw a portion of our troops unless there is an adequate offset agreement to help us bear the foreign exchange burden?

Our substantial contribution in foreign exchange, not only through BAOR but through our other NATO commitments, is well known, and I hope and believe that a solution will be found.

Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman be more robust in his answers to such questions and tell his friends from the Tribune Group that he has not made such an assessment, because only the professional disarmers would want to see British forces withdrawn and the Alliance collapse? Why cannot he tell them to get lost?

If the unhappy day ever came when the hon. Gentleman had responsibility at this Dispatch Box, I would expect him to make the answers that he wished to make. While I have the responsibility, I shall answer Questions in my own way.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could effect an instant saving by releasing from the RAF a constituent of mine who has written to him seven times in the last year, during which he has done nothing except be promoted?

I must confess that I am not familiar with that particular problem, but I shall make it my business to acquaint myself with it during the afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the recruitment activities of the three Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he remains satisfied with recruitment to Her Majesty's forces.

Yes, in so far as the recruiting needs of the Services in terms of quality and quantity are generally being met. There is, of course, always likely to be some room for improvement in terms of increased rationalisation and efficiency, and I am anxious to ensure that, wherever possible, such improvements will be made.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What progress has been made towards the possible combining of the work of the careers information offices of the three Services? Does my hon. Friend agree that such a combination might bring a saving in terms of duplicated expenditure?

I believe that the co-location of the information offices could bring about a significant saving in defence expenditure. In the 10 years since it was first decided to try to co-locate, we have done so in 57 cases, and we review the position regularly to see whether, on the expiration of leases on any of the three Services information offices, further progress can be made. Particular attention is being given to the question of co-location of the Army and naval recruiting services in Barnsley, near my hon. Friend's constituency, for example.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that whatever pressures are put on him by the Tribune group he will continue to do what is necessary to keep up the level of recruitment for the Armed Forces?

Irrespective of Opposition pressures put upon the Government to change their policy, we shall continue to try to bring about the economic recovery of the United Kingdom in order that we can sustain all our commitments. I can tell the House that, despite the knocking remarks of Opposition Members when they go round the country complaining about the state of Great Britain, we are maintaining our recruitment requirements quite adequately, as we have done over the past two years.

What is the Government's attitude to visits to schools by members of the Armed Forces, particularly in regard to allowing and, indeed, encouraging, the use of rifles by schoolchildren?

If my hon. Friend will bring to my attention any particular case that he is concerned about I shall have it investigated, but it is the desire of the Secretary of State and myself that young people at school should have all possible information made available to them about a career in the Armed Forces, and that it should be specifically drawn to their attention that enlistment in the Armed Forces opens up an honourable, exciting and worthwhile career.

In the context of recruiting, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the suggestion that the names of individual officers and men who are employed on rendering bombs safe in Northern Ireland should be published whenever Press releases are made about these events, in order to give recognition to their work?

I shall bring that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for his advice on the security aspects, as there may be reasons why it should not be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that the number of major surface combatants larger than a destroyer, expected to be fully available to the operational fleet in the next few months, is adequate for the Royal Navy to be able to perform its tasks.

Yes, Sir.

Does the hon. Gentleman confirm that, apart from the tank landing ship HMS "Fearless", which has no defensive weapons, there will have been a period this year when the only large warship in service with the Royal Navy was the cruiser HMS "Tiger"? Is it not an astonishing feat to have only one vessel of any size in the Royal Navy for the first time in history? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there can be no further cuts in the strength of the Royal Navy?

The major surface ships that will be operational in the next few months are HMS "Hermes", HMS "Tiger" and HMS "Fearless". The hon. Gentleman's deep knowledge of naval matters will make him understand my confidence that we have the number and size of ships to meet our commitments. I assure the House that the Royal Navy will continue to be in a position to meet its national and NATO commitments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Government carry out their policy of declaring an exclusive economic zone of 200 miles around our coasts we shall need a lot of ships not bigger than destroyers but smaller than destroyers, in view of the policing duties involved?

Yes. I have informed the House of the position on previous occasions, notably during an Adjournment debate. The first of the Island class of patrol boats, designed specifically for this purpose, will become operational during the current year, and by the end of next year all will be in service. In addition, from 1st January, four Nimrods will also be available for this purpose, and for inshore purposes the Bird class patrol boats will be available. This is in addition to what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office provide.

Because of the shortage of these vessels the Royal Navy has already been unable to meet its commitments this year. Did it not have to use British Rail ferries to take British troops to Norway? Was not that an extremely unsound operational thing to do? Will the hon. Gentleman see that it does not happen again?

In September, Marines and Army personnel were transported to Norway by commercial operators for the NATO "Teamwork" exercise. Despite the reduction in specialised reinforcement shipping as a result of the defence review, there is still available HMS "Hermes", in her secondary rôle, and the LSLs will be sufficient for many years to come to meet our requirements, supplemented, if necessary, from commercial resources under long-standing arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of one multi-rôle combat aircraft.

The estimated unit production costs at the economic conditions and exchange rates applying to the 1977–78 Estimates are £6·34 million for the common strike version and £7·72 million for the air defence variant.

How many of these aircraft are to be eventually delivered? What possible justification is there for such extravagant and rising expenditure on such lethal instruments, particularly at a time when the Government are cutting back on essential expenditure on education, housing, health, social work and food subsidies?

The total number of aircraft contemplated for provision to the air forces of Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom is 809.

Will the Minister confirm that the substance known as titanium sponge which goes into the MRCA is being purchased from the Soviet Union, on the ground that it is actually cheaper to obtain it there than from a manufacturer in Britain? Is this not a ridiculous state of affairs?

I do not know whether it is ridiculous for the Germans to be buying it or for the Russians to be supplying it, but I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. It is being bought not for parts manufactured in this country but for parts manufactured in the Federal Republic of Germany.

As long as we are talking about the economics of operating aircraft, does the Minister agree that to use Nimrod for the purpose of the surveillance of fishing limits is a bit wasteful? Should not the Minister be ordering Jetstream aircraft from Scottish Aviation Ltd., so that people may be kept in their jobs?

This is a proposal that has not been put to me before. I shall be happy to look at it, as the hon. Gentleman has raised it, but it runs a little wide of the original Question.

If there were to be a separate Scottish air force, who exactly would do the servicing of the Nimrod squadron, based at Lossiemouth?

That is a question with which I am glad that I have yet to wrestle. I do not propose to tax my poor mind with it at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will curtail expenditure on special allowances made to enable the children of members serving in the Armed Forces to attend fee-paying schools, in the interests of Her Majesty's Government's policy on comprehensive education.

No, Sir. My primary concern is with the interests of the Armed Forces, and I am satisfied that the educational needs of their children in the special circumstances of Service life could not be met if reliance were placed only on the limited boarding school facilities available within the maintained system.

I appreciate the necessity for providing boarding school accommodation for the children of parents who are likely to be posted at short notice, but does the Secretary of State not accept that the policy of dispatching such children to private fee-paying schools is in contradiction to the Government's comprehensive policy? Will he not, therefore, utilise the boarding schools provided by local authorities for this purpose?

As far as I am aware, a considerable number of Service men send their children to the boarding schools maintained by local authorities, but there are very few such schools. It would not be a matter for me, but certainly it would be a complete change of policy for many local authorities, and the cost would be considerable if, as I would naturally prefer, comprehensive boarding schools were to be available for all the children concerned. At the moment they are not.

How many children of parents in the Armed Forces are at fee-paying boarding schools and how many are at boarding schools maintained by local authorities?

I could not give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures without notice, but if he will put down a Question I shall certainly seek to give him the figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to withdraw British troops from their NATO assignment in Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the level of British forces in West Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to reduce the strength of BAOR.

In accordance with our Brussels Treaty commitments, we maintain land forces of 55,000 men and a tactical air force on the mainland of Europe. These forces have a key rôle to play in the forward defence strategy of the Alliance and we have no plans to reduce them in advance of mutual and balanced force reductions.

Then what on earth was the Prime Minister blabbering about in his stupid "Panorama" broadcast a couple of weeks ago?

I do not regard that as being a proper question concerning the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think that the House appreciates that the Prime Minister was, for both home and overseas consumption, putting the facts on the record, namely, that a substantial part of our overseas indebtedness is due to the stationing of our forces overseas in this way.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall not have a strong defence if we have a weak economy, and that it is reasonable for the Government to put the proposition to the German Government that, with their large reserves and in view of our financial difficulties, they should make a larger contribution to the maintenance of our troops in Germany.

As I understood it, that was the message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was seeking to convey—that it is not just a British or German problem but an Alliance problem.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is more to the level and strength of British forces in Germany than the difficulties of our economy? Does he understand that the maintenance of the full 55,000 British troops in Germany is crucial to the security of this country?

I accept, as I have said many times, that our commitment to NATO is an essential part of the defence of this country. That is why we have not indicated any plans to withdraw from that commitment. But, of course, it involves an expenditure in deutschemarks in Germany, and if we are not able to borrow the necessary foreign currency we are in difficulties.

Is it not a fact that the French Government have recently decided to withdraw 10,000 of their 60,000 troops from Germany, and that they have given financial difficulties as a reason? If the French can withdraw their troops, why cannot we, since our financial situation is far more difficult than theirs?

There are two or three very important reasons why our position is different from that of France. First, we have a treaty commitment. We are the only country with a treaty commitment in this regard. Secondly, although I am happy to say that they work very closely with the NATO forces, the French forces are not part of the NATO integrated forces. As far as I am aware, the French Government have never had any offset arrangements of the sort that we were discussing a little earlier this afternoon.

The Secretary of State will recall that the Prime Minister's exact words were that there could come a situation when we must put our own interests first. How is keeping the British Army on the Rhine up to strength not putting our own interests first?

I think that the use of a textual criticism based on a short extract from an interview is not a successful way of conducting questions and answers. I have made it clear that I regard it as in our interests that our forces should stay in Germany, but naturally it is also in our interests that we should be able to pay the costs involved—not least the wages of the German civilians who give our forces such excellent support.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the level of recruitment to the sponsored units of the TAVR; and whether he will make a statement.

Sponsored units have benefited from this year's upsurge in recruiting, although not to the same extent as the independent units. There is room for improvement, and the situation is kept under careful review.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sponsored units of the TAVR are 4,000 below strength on an establishment of 12,000? Will not he consider making a one-year tour of duty with the Reserve a requirement for a soldier ending his Regular tour of duty?

I do not think that that would alter the situation. To quote from the hon. Gentleman's own pamphlet, these are units which are composed entirely of key specialists who do the same jobs in the Army as they do in civilian life. That being so, clearly it is much more difficult recruiting in the sponsored units than it is in the independent units.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the TAVR is a very efficient way of maintaining a reserve of manpower at an economic cost, but that there is some concern about training facilities and their cost, especially in Germany?

I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. The TAVR plays a most important part in the defence of this country. That is all the more reason why I am so pleased that recruitment went up so well last year. As for training, I do not think that my hon. Friend need be too apprehensive, because, every year, we send up to 12,000 TAVR men to train in Germany.

I agree with the Minister that the TAVR is well recruited and efficient, but will he consider increasing the numbers of TAVR, perhaps to be set off against a reduction in our Regular reserves, who are still liable but who, after a few years, have no training at all?

At present, the independent units of the TAVR are about 87 per cent. recruited. Clearly, we have some way to go in recruiting. Nevertheless, in terms of the sponsored units, where there are shortages, these would not impair efficiency, because our practice would be to top up with Regular reservists.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to which weapon programmes the recent nuclear test was related.

I have nothing to add to the report that I gave my hon. Friend on 12th October 1976.

With respect to my right hon. Friend, that is a non-answer. The answer that I got before was also a non-answer in that sense, because it was a matter of routine testing of nuclear weapons. Why cannot this House be given more information? Why is there so much secrecy surrounding these matters? Other countries, such as France and West Germany, have much information given to them about weapons programmes, which we seem unable to get.

It has never been the practice of successive Governments to give details of nuclear test programmes. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the West German Government do not have nuclear weapons. As far as I am aware, the French Government give no more prior information on their tests than we do.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition agreed when the Government carried out the recent test, and will he confirm that it is Government policy to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear defence?

It is our policy to maintain the effectiveness of our deterrent. But I repeat the assurance given by my predecessor that we are not concerned to develop a new generation of weapons or, as is sometimes argued, to add a MIRV capability to our existing weapons.

If we are not developing a new generation of nuclear weapons, until what time and at what cost will the present generation be effective?

It is not possible to give an exact date. But it is necessary that the weapons be refurbished from time to time, and this is the course on which we are engaged.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he remains satisfied with the performance of the Chieftain tank.

Yes, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider the answer given by his right hon. Friend earlier and enlarge upon the question whether the Chobham armour was given away free to our allies? Will be also say whether British tank gun technology will be given a fair opportunity to prove itself in the trials for the new American and German tanks?

The information on the Chobham armour was given to two allies, as is customary in an alliance. As for British tank units, I would say that the 120mm Chieftain gun is the finest tank gun in the world, and we have no intention of replacing it on the Chieftain. But in the gun trials in America this year we shall certainly have every opportunity to get in on the new weapons.

Is it a fact that Chieftain tanks being supplied to Iran are to have new engines and Chobham armour? If so, when will these be fitted to British Chieftain tanks in the Army of the Rhine?

There is a later Question on that subject.

As for the Chobham armour, which was the subject of the story that appeared in The Sunday Times at the weekend, will my hon. Friend invite the Opposition Front Bench to explain to the House and to the country why they so carelessly gave away secrets that could be extremely valuable?

I am sure the Opposition will have heard that suggestion from my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister do the House the courtesy of reminding the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) that if he had been in the Chamber when this matter came up earlier he would have heard it explained that the first exchange was in 1965 and the second in 1968? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House the assurance that he wishes to see full and fair competition, which gives us the best possible chance of keeping in this tank business, with our excellent capabilities?

Of course, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in the latter part of his remarks. But he talks about 1965 and 1968. Although there certainly was an exchange—a discussion—no detailed information was given before 1972.